22 November, 2009 • 15:47
In these difficult times tenants are increasingly giving notice to end their tenancy and then seeking to withdraw that notice or staying for a few days beyond their original term. This practice is known as holding over. Where a tenant has given notice to quit, either under a break clause or in relation to a periodic tenancy, that notice is binding on the tenant even if it is defective and it can only be withdrawn or rescinded with the consent of the landlord.
Where a tenant gives notice to quit and then does not in fact vacate the premises, staying for a few extra days the provisions of section 18 of the Distress for Rent Act 1737 come into play. This section states that to discourage tenants causing “great inconveniences … by … refusing to deliver up the possession when the landlord hath agreed with another tenant for the same” the landlord may seek double the sum normally charged in rent.
This can only occur where the tenant has given a valid notice to quit which the landlord accepts as a valid notice and where the landlord is, therefore treating the tenant as a trespasser while they hold over. In other words it can only apply where the landlord would have a right to seek possession through the Courts but is unable to do so because the tenant will not be remaining in the property for long enough to make it a practical option. The landlord may not seek double rent for a full period of the tenancy (as this would be inconsistent with treating the tenant as a trespasser) and must charge it on a daily basis. It should also be noted that failure to return keys promptly is not sufficient to engage this principle.
A landlord can recover his double rent in the normal manner from the tenant’s deposit or through the Courts although landlords are warned that, in general, neither tenancy deposit protection adjudicators or judges are familiar with this legislation and so a claim may be hard to pursue in practice.
It should be noted that this stipulation does not apply to tenants who remain in a property for a few extra days at the end of the fixed term or who try to leave part way through a period of a periodic tenancy. In both of these cases the tenancy does not end and the landlord cannot treat these persons as trespassers. The tenancy simply continues for another period until the notice is properly given.
Filed under: Uncategorized , notice to quit, rent, revision
In a periodic Assured or Assured Shorthold Tenancy the provisions of section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 are used to increase the rent. This is not a wholly satisfactory system as it is overly technical and ultimately allows appeals to the Rent Assessment Committee which can be somewhat capricious.
It has been thought that a clause in the agreement which set out a mechanism for increasing the rent, however abbreviated, would be sufficient to oust the provisions of section 13 and the clause would prevail.
In London District Properties Management Ltd v Goolamy [2009] EWHC 1367 (Admin) this view has been overturned. The High Court ruled that the prevailing view was inaccurate. Taking a literal view of section 5(3) of the Act the Court held that in a statutory periodic tenancy the provisions of section 13 would overrule any rent increase clause.
Bizarrely, the legislation appears to draw a distinction between tenancies which are intended to be periodic from the outset and those which start out as fixed term tenancies and become periodic by operation of section 5. The former can incorporate rent increase clauses, the latter will have theirs overruled by the section 13 process once the tenancy has become periodic. While the Court does not mention this point it would seem that the way around the problem is to simply agree a tenancy for a fixed term with a contractual provision that it will then continue as a periodic tenancy. Presumably if it is pre-agreed that this will occur then the provisions of section 5 will not be required to create a periodic tenancy and thus the section 13 provisions will not be given the primacy that section 5(3) provides.
Whether this will work or not remains to be seen.
Filed under: Uncategorized , Housing Act 1988, rent
21 December, 2008 • 14:36
The British Retail Consortium has stepped up its campaign to force landlords to accept rent monthly in advance rather than on the usual quarter days as has previously been the practice. They have produced template letters for tenants to send to landlords to seek alterations in their leases to allow for monthly payment of rent.
It is, of course, one thing for large retailers who, irrespective of the financial situation retain enormous financial muscle, to demand changes to rent payment provisions and quite another for the average small retailer to do so. However, other than the slight inconvenience of collecting rent monthly there seems few sound reasons for landlords not to accept a move to monthly rent and most new commercial leases stipulate monthly rental payments. The fact that the government also backs such a change is also a powerful force.
More information including the various templates can be found at the rent monthly website.
Filed under: Uncategorized , commercial lease, rent
